School Punishment Stirs Debate

Case Involves Son Of Board Member

JAMES CITY COUNTY — Two Lafayette High School juniors, one of them the son of School Board member Bruce MacDonald, drank beer before going to school Feb. 21.

On that point, teachers and parents seem to agree. They also agree that Lafayette administrators followed normal procedures when they suspended the boys for five days and recommended the two be expelled.

There the agreement ends and the argument begins.

A review of the case by Superintendent James Kent, and a subsequent change in the boys' punishment, was followed by weeks of controversy and debate. Some people say Kent showed favoritism because MacDonald's son was involved, but others say he wisely softened an excessive punishment.

"I think teachers were caught off guard with what they perceived as a change in procedures," said Clay Henson, an officer with the Williamsburg-James City Education Association, the teachers' professional organization. "If nothing else, it was monumentally unfortunate that a case students and teachers perceive as a change in procedure happened to involve a School Board member's son."

Kent said MacDonald's role on the board was not a factor in his decision.

"I'm not influenced by politics or politicians," Kent said. "I just hope that people will look at my integrity as an educator over the last 30 years."

Kent, who came to the district in January, heard an appeal of the case filed by the parents of the two boys last month. Based on the appeal, he decided the boys should have three days of out-of-school suspension and two days of in-school suspension rather than the recommended five-day out-of-school suspension. In-school suspension means the students are allowed to do school work in a classroom but are separated from the other students at all times.

Instead of expelling the students, Kent put them on probation for the rest of the year.

Kent said he made the punishment fit the crime, adding that he took Lafayette's new class schedule into account when making his decision. The school's new "block schedule," with its longer, more intensive class periods, makes missing five days of school almost like missing 10 days under the previous schedule, he said. He didn't want the students to miss a full week of assignments.

"I was trying to look at the merits of the case based on the circumstances," he said. "I think what I did was reasonable and consistent with other decisions I've made this year."

The reaction to his decision was so strong that Kent decided to meet with the school's faculty last week to discuss the issue, explaining that he and a 10-member committee of administrators and other staffers have been reviewing discipline policies since February. At the meeting, he said current policies are confusing and misleading.

"I told them there are many inconsistencies and contradictions that need to be looked at," Kent said this week.

He said the expulsion recommendation is automatic in cases involving alcohol use, drug use or weapons possession, but school officials usually seek an alternative. Of 70 such cases referred to his office this year, Kent said, fewer than 20 have resulted in expulsions.

"We have to have safe schools, but, at the same time, we want students to learn from their poor decisions and be productive in the future," he said.

Some teachers came away from the faculty meeting dissatisfied, and two representatives of the education association complained to the School Board this week that Kent had departed from standard practices. They also asked to play a role in the review of discipline policies.

Henson, of the association, said Kent may have unintentionally invited other students to test the school district's rules.

"Teachers are worried about some kind of snowball effect," he said. "Teen-agers don't really see rules as rules unless they see them as consistent."

Not everyone thought Kent was wrong to make the change. Some parents said what the boys did was not nearly as bad as bringing a gun to school or using drugs on school property - two violations that would earn the same recommended punishment.

The boys drank some beer before school and had cigarettes with them on campus, both violations of school policy, according to parents and school documents. But they were not accused of being drunk or disruptive.

"Let's look at this realistically," said Linda Lennon, whose son is also a junior at Lafayette. "In that school there are fights, there are guns, there are knives - these kids weren't drunk, and they didn't bring the alcohol on school property. This is being blown way out of proportion."

Anne Annala, an assistant principal at Lafayette, said Kent tried to make the best decision for the students and for the school.

"He tried to come up with an equitable solution," Annala said. "I think he was looking at the academic significance for the students, and I think he would have made the same decision for anyone."

She said it is difficult to compare the situation with another alcohol related incident in February. In that case, a student was suspended for a full five days out of school, but her parents did not appeal the punishment.

Like the two boys, that student was put on probation for the rest of the year instead of being expelled.

Next week, Kent and the other members of a committee reviewing discipline will talk about including more district employees and parents in their work, a move encouraged by a letter circulated Friday by the School Board.

In the meantime, the two boys and their families are trying to put a painful situation behind them.

"They're good kids who made a stupid mistake and learned their lesson," said Brenda MacDonald, mother of one of the boys. "Our son was just humiliated by this. Now we have to move forward and let them get on with their lives."